ORDER A.N. Verma, J. - This is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below granting permission to the landlord respondent under section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Briefly stated the relevant facts are as follows. 2. The petitioner is a tenant in an accommodation of which the respondent No. 2 is the landlord. An application was filed by the landlord, on the ground that the building in question was in a dilapidated condition and it was needed for demolition and reconstruction. The application was contested by the petitioner. Both the sides led evidence including reports of the experts on the condition of the building. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application with the finding that the building in question was in a dilapidated condition and it was required to be demolished and reconstructed by the landlord. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed and hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following points for my consideration. 1. That the appellant court has committed an error of law in not giving the finding on the question whether there has been proper compliance of the provisions of Rule 17, clauses 2 to 4 of the Rules framed under the Act. 2. That the appellate court has not considered the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner. 3. That the appellate court has misread the report of the commissioner. 4. That the Prescribed Authority ought to have made a local inspection. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that there is no substance in any of these points. Taking the first point first, the grievance which is now being sought in the writ petition does not appear to have been made before the lower appellate court. In the writ petition, it, was urged that this point relating to the compliance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act was urged before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court has failed to determine that point. In the writ petition, it, was urged that this point relating to the compliance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act was urged before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court has failed to determine that point. This allegation of the petitioner has been specifically denied by the landlord respondent in the Counter affidavit which has been filed in this court. The Prescribed Authority had considered this aspect of the case and decided it against the petitioner. In view of the fact that there is no mention in any point relating to the alleged non compliance with Rule 17 of the Rules, in the order of the learned District Judge, I am inclined to accept the facts stated in the counter affidavit namely that no complaint was made before the lower appellate court in regard to the finding of the trial court relating to the compliance with Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. There is, therefore, no substance in the first point urged on behalf of the petitioner. 5. As far the second point, learned counsel urged that the lower appellate court has not considered the entire evidence led on behalf of the petitioner, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the omission of the lower appellate court to mention specifically each and every piece of the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner. In my view, from the mere fact that there is no specific mention of each and every document or evidence filed or led on behalf of the petitioner, it is not possible to conclude that the lower appellate court has not considered the entire evidence of the petitioner. There is, therefore, no substance in the second point also urged on behalf of the petitioner. 6. As regards the third point, learned counsel read out before me the report of the Commissioner and from that he wanted me to hold that the learned District Judge has misread the report of the commissioner inasmuch as the lower appellate court has only referred to me of the cracks said to have been found by the Commissioner as mentioned in his report whereas the lower appellate court has omitted to mention other facts found by the commissioner. This is very different from saying that the report has been misread. This is very different from saying that the report has been misread. What the learned counsel wanted me to do was to re-appreciate the evidence. He was only wholly unable to point out a single instance of misreading of the report. I have seen the report of the Commissioner and have perused the order passed by the learned District Judge, but I do not find that there has been any misreading of the Commissioner's report. It is possible that the learned District Judge may have given greater emphasis to some part of the report than to the other parts of it and hence did not specifically mention those parts of the reports. 7. As regards the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner he has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1976 Allahabad. Weekly Cases 308 in which a learned Judge of this Court has held that in the event of a conflict between the two reports of the Commissioners, the Prescribed Authority ought to make a local inspection himself. The learned Judge deciding this case, has specifically mentioned that on the peculiar fact of that case, it was incumbent on the Prescribed authority to make a local inspection. The observation of the Hon'ble Judge in that case ought to have been read in the context of the facts of that case. The learned Judge does not seem to have laid down that in each and every case irrespective of its facts whether there is a conflict in the reports of the Commissioner the court must make a local inspection itself. In the present case, the lower appellate court has considered both the reports and has, for good and proper reasons, rejected the report of the expert examined on behalf of the petitioner. In my view, having rejected the report of the expert examined; on behalf of the petitioner for good and proper reasons and having accepted the Commissioner's report who inspected the premises as court Commissioner, it was not necessary for the Judge to have made a local inspection. There is, therefore, no substance in the last point also urged on behalf of the petitioner. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is granted three months' time to vacate the premises.